I think the politicians already know that the public will not turn against them in an election because they failed to implement electoral reform, and that the public will not vote for electoral reform when given the chance to do so in a referendum.

So why will the politicians suddenly sit up and take notice because a bunch of people who never liked FPTP to begin with hold a meeting demanding an end to FPTP, and call it a "National Citizens Assembly On Electoral Reform"?

I think the politicians already know that the public will not turn against them in an election because they failed to implement electoral reform, and that the public will not vote for electoral reform when given the chance to do so in a referendum.

So why will the politicians suddenly sit up and take notice because a bunch of people who never liked FPTP to begin with hold a meeting demanding an end to FPTP, and call it a "National Citizens Assembly On Electoral Reform"?

I think the NDP and Greens will continue to support PR and if the situation arises, let’s say during a Liberal minority government, the NDP and Greens could try to establish a national citizens assembly on electoral reform in return for propping up a Liberal government. As it is. Quebec’s current government seems to be going ahead with electoral reform without using a referendum to upend the process.

Didn't Trudeau support a Preferential vote where you get 2nd and 3rd choices, better than FPTP but Fair Vote Canada opposed to get Proportional, certainly the fairest ? But Preferential would have been a first step to Proportional.

Didn't Trudeau support a Preferential vote where you get 2nd and 3rd choices, better than FPTP but Fair Vote Canada opposed to get Proportional, certainly the fairest ? But Preferential would have been a first step to Proportional.

Yes. He tried, but not hard enough - perhaps counting on his near certainty that this proposal wouldn't achieve consensus. But it's more fun to say: "He promised that would be the last FPTP election, and it's not, so he's a liar!"

Didn't Trudeau support a Preferential vote where you get 2nd and 3rd choices, better than FPTP but Fair Vote Canada opposed to get Proportional, certainly the fairest ? But Preferential would have been a first step to Proportional.

Yes. He tried, but not hard enough - perhaps counting on his near certainty that this proposal wouldn't achieve consensus. But it's more fun to say: "He promised that would be the last FPTP election, and it's not, so he's a liar!"

He didn't have to give up on electoral reform after the Preferential model was rejected. He could have put up other models for consideration.

Didn't Trudeau support a Preferential vote where you get 2nd and 3rd choices, better than FPTP but Fair Vote Canada opposed to get Proportional, certainly the fairest ? But Preferential would have been a first step to Proportional.

Yes. He tried, but not hard enough - perhaps counting on his near certainty that this proposal wouldn't achieve consensus. But it's more fun to say: "He promised that would be the last FPTP election, and it's not, so he's a liar!"

He didn't have to give up on electoral reform after the Preferential model was rejected. He could have put up other models for consideration.

I don’t think Trudeau had much room to maneuver once the Conservatives and NDP on the electoral committee concluded that the committee would recommend that Canada have a national referendum on an unspecified fully proportional electoral system. I don’t think there was much Trudeau could do once the committee decided to self-destruct by recommending having a referendum that Trudeau was understandably opposed to having. Trudeau probably should have kept a Liberal majority on the electoral committee to ensure that the government could back the committee’s recommendation.

Didn't Trudeau support a Preferential vote where you get 2nd and 3rd choices, better than FPTP but Fair Vote Canada opposed to get Proportional, certainly the fairest ? But Preferential would have been a first step to Proportional.

Yes. He tried, but not hard enough - perhaps counting on his near certainty that this proposal wouldn't achieve consensus. But it's more fun to say: "He promised that would be the last FPTP election, and it's not, so he's a liar!"

He didn't have to give up on electoral reform after the Preferential model was rejected. He could have put up other models for consideration.

I don’t think Trudeau had much room to maneuver once the Conservatives and NDP on the electoral committee concluded that the committee would recommend that Canada have a national referendum on an unspecified fully proportional electoral system. I don’t think there was much Trudeau could do once the committee decided to self-destruct by recommending having a referendum that Trudeau was understandably opposed to having. Trudeau probably should have kept a Liberal majority on the electoral committee to ensure that the government could back the committee’s recommendation.

So: There was nothing Trudeau could do once it became clear the committee wouldn't tell him what he wanted. He should've made sure it'd tell him that. Hard to square with his endorsement of the noble and independent work of Liberal-controlled committees shutting down the JWR investigation, though.

You know, cco, I have little but contempt for Trudeau at the best of times. But seriously - would you have preferred that in the absence of consensus, he had simply legislated preferential voting in order to keep his dumb "promise" ("last FPTP election blah blah")? I don't think so. Yes, he didn't try hard enough. No, he didn't "lie" or "break a promise". Those accusations really miss the point.

No, of course not. I'd have preferred he implement the committee's recommendation. But I didn't expect him to, since the "promise" was clearly a knee-jerk reaction to the existential horror of the NDP being official opposition. Once that was rectified and the "red door/blue door" system had returned, so the Liberal spin team can scream "YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!" at Canadians again, there was zero chance of electoral reform. The only question was how they'd kill it.

The fact I expect something of the Liberals doesn't mean I won't criticize it, though.

No, of course not. I'd have preferred he implement the committee's recommendation. But I didn't expect him to, since the "promise" was clearly a knee-jerk reaction to the existential horror of the NDP being official opposition. Once that was rectified and the "red door/blue door" system had returned, so the Liberal spin team can scream "YOU HAVE NO CHOICE!" at Canadians again, there was zero chance of electoral reform. The only question was how they'd kill it. The fact I expect something of the Liberals doesn't mean I won't criticize it, though.

Justin Trudeau's 2 biggest weaknesses on the left flank of his party are on electoral reform and the environment, and the fact that Singh is attacking Trudeau on these two issues is encouraging. He has the right issues in his focus.

I think his biggest weakness on the left is his polite racism towards Indigenous peoples. Which the NDP is also highlighting. But sure, it is worth pointing out that if the Liberals had kept their promise on voting systems, people would not face any prospect of a Conservative government. That they do can be blamed on Trudeau’s decision to abandon electoral reform.

I think people are really underplaying the significance of electoral reform in the next election. They miss two critical things:

1) Sure a majority of voters don't care. But they also do not matter. A majority of voters are in the bag already for a political party. The ones that do care are the people who provide the small number of swing votes that in winner take all FPTP can make a difference.

2) Still, most of the people if you ask them if they care right now, they might not even know what issue you are talking about. It is not on the radar. It won't be either until and unless the Liberals get close to the end of the campaign and worry about losing. The tactic they have used in the past, has always been -- look at how bad the Conservatives are, Green and NDP voters come to us. that is the exact point the right group of voters (the ones who could respond to such an appeal) will remember the broken promise.

So given the above, having the same, say, 3-4% of the population really pissed at you for putting them in the same position, despite the promise, is not ideal. If half of them, say 1.5-2% decide to say a big screw you then the last minute appeal to scoop up non-Liberal, anti, Conservative votes could fail accross a bunch of those very close ridings, decided in winner take all FPTP, by less than a percentage. The result could mean the difference between a Conservative majority and a Liberal Minority.

You can count on this story being pushed by every party but the Liberal party and by the media (since it is a good story). It is very possible that it will not come up until the last week of the election but it does not mean thtat this won't make a difference.

The Liberals fucking deserve this.

I think the Liberals could have succeeded if they meant it at some version of electoral reform. This means I consider them to have lied and I do not accept the spin here that they had no choice.

I don’t think Trudeau had much room to maneuver once the Conservatives and NDP on the electoral committee concluded that the committee would recommend that Canada have a national referendum on an unspecified fully proportional electoral system. I don’t think there was much Trudeau could do once the committee decided to self-destruct by recommending having a referendum that Trudeau was understandably opposed to having. Trudeau probably should have kept a Liberal majority on the electoral committee to ensure that the government could back the committee’s recommendation.

So: There was nothing Trudeau could do once it became clear the committee wouldn't tell him what he wanted. He should've made sure it'd tell him that.

I think Trudeau’s weak understanding of electoral systems also limited his ability to act on electoral reform. I think the obvious compromise between the NDP and Liberals was a semi-proportional system that used preferential voting. I think the NDP and Greens should have proposed such a system to Trudeau with the option of making the system more proportional over time. A preferential electoral system with something like 10% PR seats could have been proposed by the NDP with the possibility of adding PR seats gradually in subsequent elections if PR was shown to be an improvement over the status quo. In any case, a referendum should never have been part of the committee’s recommendations. A referendum was just a Conservative ploy to prevent electoral reform. The NDP should not have fallen for the Conservative’s ploy. The NDP should have put electoral reform ahead of short term petty partisan politics in teaming up with the Conservatives to score short term political points.

Actually the NDP+Greens did their damndest to get the Liberals to endorse something, even a half-measure phased in. Evidence: the NDP+Green Supplementary report:
"We believe the government should consider adopting one of the following models, both of which would result in a Gallagher score of less than four.

Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP), with 2/3 of the House of Commons elected to represent direct constituencies, and 1/3 elected as regional compensatory members. Regional compensatory MPs may be elected from an open list, flexible list, as recommended by the Law Reform Commission, or they may be elected as “best runners-up”, as per the Baden-Württemberg system. Open and flexible lists have the benefit of letting voters choose. The Baden-Württemberg option has the benefit of forcing all candidates to be scrutinized and supported by voters every election in order to win their seat. Compensatory seats would be drawn from territories, provinces, or sub-regions within provinces. As such, since it would not affect current riding boundaries, a full riding redistribution would be unnecessary. The government could decide to take an incremental approach by adding regional compensatory MPs in groups of 30-45 over the next three or four elections.

Rural-urban proportional representation (RUP), as first elaborated by former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, in which current riding boundaries are maintained, but current urban ridings are clustered into multi-member ridings of three to five MPs. To minimize the level of distortion between the popular will of the electorate and the resultant seat allocations in Parliament, in 2019, the government should add an additional 50 seats for regional compensatory MPs. Again, regional compensatory MPs may be elected from an open list, flexible list, or elected as “best runners-up”, as per the Baden-Württemberg system. Like our proposed MMP model, compensatory seats would be drawn from territories, provinces, or sub-regions within provinces. "

"The government could decide to take an incremental approach by adding regional compensatory MPs in groups of 30-45 over the next three or four elections?" Never NDP Policy, the NDP MPs were willing to settle for almost anything. No, the PMO had issued the orders: since we aren't going to get the ranked ballot which almost nobody wants, shut it down. That's why the NDP+Greens had to make a deal with the Conservatives in order to avoid a "no report" outcome.

Justin explained his reasoning very well on February 10, 2017:
"I always felt that we could make a clear improvement to our political process by offering people to not ever have to vote strategically again, to give a preference on your ballot. To rank your ballot. A lot of people don’t like it. A lot of people say it favours Liberals.

What it does is it favours parties who are good at reaching out to find common ground with broad groups of Canadians, to say, “How can I be your second choice?” That’s what it does. I think that’s probably a good thing, but I have heard very clearly that people don’t think that’s a good thing, or that they think it would favour Liberals too much. And therefore I’m not going near it, because I am not going to do something that everyone is convinced is going to favour one party over another."

So did he lie in 2015? Definitely. His platform said "We will make every vote count. We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation . . ." This echoed the convention resolution which said "ranked ballots and/or proportional representation." He was claming to be open to PR. That was a lie. He was always dead opposed to it. Electoral reformers stopped the PMO’s bait-and-switch operation. We not only stopped it, we exposed it.

Trudeau was not going to accept PR. He would have accepted ranked or transferable. That would have been the compromise position between status quo and PR. The NDP decided FPTP is better than ranked.

Look look he broke promises! comes across as an infantile argument because we all know politicians break promises all the time. It only matters if the promises he broke matter more to people than the economy. Electoral reform isn't up there.

Look look he broke promises! comes across as an infantile argument because we all know politicians break promises all the time. It only matters if the promises he broke matter more to people than the economy. Electoral reform isn't up there.

BUT this time it may be different for Trudeau. He posed as a great reformer, a different kind of politician. At the same time many people had doubts about his sincerity, his depth and his abilities. They were prepared to overlook their doubts and give him a chance.

Those doubts have now surfaced in light of Lavalin, electoral reform and other issues. People feel like the true man is revealing himself -callow, narcissistic, without core beliefs. They feel betrayed.

Had he not put himself on such a pedestal his hypocrisy would not be rebounding against him like it is now.

It is a sleeper issue -- one that will not come up unless the Liberals appeal to 3-5th party voters to prevent the Conservatives winning. This is an appeal the Liberals have done EVERY time they have come near to losing an election for the last 50 years.

It does matter because it puts a chill on any "lend us your vote" campaign by the Liberals and would create a backlash if they did. That backlash will not just come from the NDP and Greens who are concerned but will be amplified by the media and by the Conservatives who will do what they can to make sure this type of appeal does not work.

So this is not up there now in terms of priorities but it compromises a Liberal campaign strategy they have used in the past and it would very quickly be up there if the Liberals went there.

That's why the NDP+Greens had to make a deal with the Conservatives in order to avoid a "no report" outcome.

I think a “no report” outcome would have been preferable to the NDP and Greens making a deal with the Conservatives that included having a national referendum that was bound to be dismissed or fail. I think the NDP’s and Green’s policies on electoral reform should now be to support having a citizens’ assembly decide the matter of electoral reform with the assistance of a representative panel of experts on electoral reform and with a committee of the House of Commons also included in the electoral reform process. I think there should be a “triple lock” on electoral reform of (1) a citizens’ assembly, (2) electoral systems experts, and (3) politicians. All three groups should reach majority agreement on the most suitable system to replace our anachronistic 2-party FPTP plurality system. I think some kind of semi-proportional MMP system would be chosen from such a process.

Sean, I don't think the Liberals plan to use the "lend us your vote" approach.

If the Liberals are held to a minority then the NDP can force their hand so here's hoping.

nicky wrote:

I would generally agree with what Pondering and Unionist have said.

BUT this time it may be different for Trudeau. He posed as a great reformer, a different kind of politician. At the same time many people had doubts about his sincerity, his depth and his abilities. They were prepared to overlook their doubts and give him a chance.

Those doubts have now surfaced in light of Lavalin, electoral reform and other issues. People feel like the true man is revealing himself -callow, narcissistic, without core beliefs. They feel betrayed.

Had he not put himself on such a pedestal his hypocrisy would not be rebounding against him like it is now.

There is still lots of time before the election. Current numbers are practically meaningless. Everyone is going on about him losing his sunny ways. They don't matter any more. Every election births a fresh strategy. This time around he will run on his record meaning the child tax credit which has lifted children out of poverty and the trade deals apart from other accomplishments.

People who feel like the true man is revealing himself are people who never voted for him in the first place. He has lost his lead due to the Lavalin controversy but that won't last and many of them went Conservative not NDP which tells me they are just telling Trudeau they are pissed off. Everyone answering these polls know we are not voting tomorrow and doesn't include "undecided".

Of course it is a slap on the wrist to Trudeau but he is far from out. If SNC Lavalin is still refused a DPA Trudeau will say see, we didn't insist. We just wanted JRW to get a second opinion. If they do get a DPA they will say see, it was legally possible to give SNC Lavalin a DPA thereby saving the jobs.

It is a sleeper issue -- one that will not come up unless the Liberals appeal to 3-5th party voters to prevent the Conservatives winning. This is an appeal the Liberals have done EVERY time they have come near to losing an election for the last 50 years.

It does matter because it puts a chill on any "lend us your vote" campaign by the Liberals and would create a backlash if they did. That backlash will not just come from the NDP and Greens who are concerned but will be amplified by the media and by the Conservatives who will do what they can to make sure this type of appeal does not work.

So this is not up there now in terms of priorities but it compromises a Liberal campaign strategy they have used in the past and it would very quickly be up there if the Liberals went there.

I think it is a big deal.

I think during the upcoming election, if the Conservatives and Liberals are both ahead of the other parties, strategic voting will still be part of another FPTP election, as that is what always happens in multi-party FPTP elections. This time around I think strategic voting will be an even a bigger issue as the the Conservatives will also be calling for strategic voting to prevent people on the right from splitting the right wing vote by voting for the new People’s Party.

I think during the upcoming election, if the Conservatives and Liberals are both ahead of the other parties, strategic voting will still be part of another FPTP election, as that is what always happens in multi-party FPTP elections. This time around I think strategic voting will be an even a bigger issue as the the Conservatives will also be calling for strategic voting to prevent people on the right from splitting the right wing vote by voting for the new People’s Party.

The Liberal Party officially might not but many on the centre-left probably will once again.

yes, sure. But the Liberal party will -- if not from head office candidates who fear losing to split voting will. For them it is a last desperate move when they see that they are trailing. The central campaign has not way to stop this. Due to the broken promise there will be quite a few looking for this and it will hit the news.

Totally naive to imagine that this won't happen. It always does but it has never been as big news as it will be.

This is an easy prediction to make: there is a national campaign and 338 candidates. If the Liberals are desperateeither the national campaign will try this or some individual candidates will. It will be recieved poorly. This is also an easy prediction since the competing parties know that the tactic will be hypocritical.

The Liberals will use it becuase it is a last ditch gamble they would use when nothing else has worked and there is nothing left to try. The other parties will attack it becuase they know about this and they can.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals go back to the strategic voting well, its the last resort of a desperate campaign. To be fair Mulcair's NDP tried to appeal for strategic voting at the tail end of the 2015 campaign so it isn't a strategy that is exclusive to the Liberals.

As for people trying to reframe the narritive as the NDP and Greens being at fault for FPTP because they didn't concede... nonsense. The Liberals are the only party on the electoral reform committee that did not move one iota off their starting position, the Greens, NDP and Conservatives all changed off their starting position and reached a compromise. The onus was on the Liberals to reach a compromise position between ranked balloting and MMP, but instead they chose to take their ball and go home, instead they sent Maryam Monsef to walk up to journalists with a printed out placcard of the Gallagher index formula to mock established math like a good Conservative.

Point is it takes two to tango. The NDP could have simply agreed with the Liberal's choice just as the Liberals could have agreed with the NDP's choice. Nobody wanted to budge.

Would you have preferred that the Liberals impose their choice in order to keep their promise? If not then it isn't "not keeping their promise" that is your problem.

They were not at an impasse as you suggest. There were many options to continue to find a solution.

The Liberal choice was to shut down the process. No, the NDP did not have to agree to that.

One of which would have been to impose their solution. That would have been keeping their promise.

So the complaint is not that he didn't keep his promise. It is that he didn't keep it in a manner that would have satisfied you. Therefore, the core complaint is not about keeping promises. If he broke his promise to use P3s you would be saying he had seen the light and praising him not accusing him of being a liar.

Voters know this so they ignore that approach. Intelligent voters do want leaders to take into account new information during their mandate not just blindly keep promises so they can say they kept promises even if it is bad for the country.

Trudeau's argument is that there is no consensus amongst Canadians so it would be divisive to try to impose a change and a multiple choice referendum would be pointless and a waste of money. Considering what has happened in BC he was not wrong.

When it comes time to vote in October few people will priorize PR or lying. They will vote based on the issues important to them. Signs tell me that PR is not one of them. This angle is a waste of time and comes across as whiny. Everyone knows that PR would give the NDP more seats and more power so obviously the NDP will strongly support PR.

I honestly wish PR would come in so NDPers would have to accept that Canadians are majority centrist. Canadians are radically moderate. They want the country well run, low unemployment, the ability to buy a house and car, have a family, good health care system, that sort of thing. Well run now includes doing more about the environment and global warming but it is on the list not the sole or top priority. That's why Trudeau's economy and environment hand in hand line goes over so well. You can bet a thinktank worked on messaging. It says you can have your cake and eat it too while putting the economy at odds with the environment when the truth is greening is good for the economy and the environment even if it isn't good for Alberta's economy.

Anyone who is going to vote NDP based on the issue of PR already knows what went down. No need to pitch it. It isn't a "might as well" situation.

Absolutely everything said must be filtered by the question "who if anyone will be influenced to vote for or against us based on this statement?" That goes triple if Singh is saying it directly. You want to be sure that it will not lose you more voters than you gain. You want voters to believe you are focused on what is important to them. PR is seen as important to the NDP. Aside from all that you don't want the media distracted from your primary messaging.

Trudeau's lines had me gagging by the end of the 2015 election. I can't stand the phrase "the middle class and those striving to join it" nor "balancing the economy and the environment". They are like musical ear worms which is what makes them so powerful.

Trudeau is going to be bragging about trade deals and having lifted children out of poverty and low unemployment and progress on boil water advisories and the carbon tax and I am sure a lot of other things.

The NDP complaining about the PR thing will come across as insignificant at best. The NDP can't afford to lose a second of time to influence voters. Did we not experience the same flippidy-floppidy 2015 election in which the 3 parties bounced around all taking first position at some point? Conservatives never fell below second position. Both Liberals and NDP saw third place. PR is not a topic that will result in that kind of movement.

In Alberta Kenny won because voters put the economy ahead of everything else and they believe Conservative economic policy leads to prosperity. True Alberta has long been the most Conservative province in Canada but people across the country put a high priority on economic prosperity believing all else flows from that and they are not wrong. Economic prosperity is key to strong social programs.

The war we must win is to expose neoliberalism as bad for the economy because it is bad for the economy. Then people will vote for economically progressive parties and the overton window will shift left instead of right.

Obsessing over PR is a distraction so I wish we had it already. I sincerely hope that Legault keeps his promise about imposing it. I don't know where that is at right now.

The Liberals are the only party on the electoral reform committee that did not move one iota off their starting position, the Greens, NDP and Conservatives all changed off their starting position and reached a compromise.

What compromise did the Conservatives make? They always demanded that a national referendum had to take place in order for electoral reform to take place. I think the Conservatives were the big winners from the deal they made with the NDP and Greens. If the referendum recommended by the committee had taken place, both Conservatives and Liberals would have campaigned against PR, which likely have seen PR lose by a considerable margin against so much opposition. During a referendum Conservatives and Liberals would both have agreed that PR was being foisted on Canada in the interests of just the NDP and Greens. The Conservatives were completely opposed to PR and I think coming to an agreement with them was not a compromise and it was contrary to the interests of electoral reform.

Point is it takes two to tango. The NDP could have simply agreed with the Liberal's choice just as the Liberals could have agreed with the NDP's choice. Nobody wanted to budge.

Would you have preferred that the Liberals impose their choice in order to keep their promise? If not then it isn't "not keeping their promise" that is your problem.

They were not at an impasse as you suggest. There were many options to continue to find a solution.

The Liberal choice was to shut down the process. No, the NDP did not have to agree to that.

One of which would have been to impose their solution. That would have been keeping their promise.

So the complaint is not that he didn't keep his promise. It is that he didn't keep it in a manner that would have satisfied you. Therefore, the core complaint is not about keeping promises. If he broke his promise to use P3s you would be saying he had seen the light and praising him not accusing him of being a liar.

Voters know this so they ignore that approach. Intelligent voters do want leaders to take into account new information during their mandate not just blindly keep promises so they can say they kept promises even if it is bad for the country.

Trudeau's argument is that there is no consensus amongst Canadians so it would be divisive to try to impose a change and a multiple choice referendum would be pointless and a waste of money. Considering what has happened in BC he was not wrong.

When it comes time to vote in October few people will priorize PR or lying. They will vote based on the issues important to them. Signs tell me that PR is not one of them. This angle is a waste of time and comes across as whiny. Everyone knows that PR would give the NDP more seats and more power so obviously the NDP will strongly support PR.

I honestly wish PR would come in so NDPers would have to accept that Canadians are majority centrist. Canadians are radically moderate. They want the country well run, low unemployment, the ability to buy a house and car, have a family, good health care system, that sort of thing. Well run now includes doing more about the environment and global warming but it is on the list not the sole or top priority. That's why Trudeau's economy and environment hand in hand line goes over so well. You can bet a thinktank worked on messaging. It says you can have your cake and eat it too while putting the economy at odds with the environment when the truth is greening is good for the economy and the environment even if it isn't good for Alberta's economy.

Anyone who is going to vote NDP based on the issue of PR already knows what went down. No need to pitch it. It isn't a "might as well" situation.

Absolutely everything said must be filtered by the question "who if anyone will be influenced to vote for or against us based on this statement?" That goes triple if Singh is saying it directly. You want to be sure that it will not lose you more voters than you gain. You want voters to believe you are focused on what is important to them. PR is seen as important to the NDP. Aside from all that you don't want the media distracted from your primary messaging.

Trudeau's lines had me gagging by the end of the 2015 election. I can't stand the phrase "the middle class and those striving to join it" nor "balancing the economy and the environment". They are like musical ear worms which is what makes them so powerful.

Trudeau is going to be bragging about trade deals and having lifted children out of poverty and low unemployment and progress on boil water advisories and the carbon tax and I am sure a lot of other things.

The NDP complaining about the PR thing will come across as insignificant at best. The NDP can't afford to lose a second of time to influence voters. Did we not experience the same flippidy-floppidy 2015 election in which the 3 parties bounced around all taking first position at some point? Conservatives never fell below second position. Both Liberals and NDP saw third place. PR is not a topic that will result in that kind of movement.

In Alberta Kenny won because voters put the economy ahead of everything else and they believe Conservative economic policy leads to prosperity. True Alberta has long been the most Conservative province in Canada but people across the country put a high priority on economic prosperity believing all else flows from that and they are not wrong. Economic prosperity is key to strong social programs.

The war we must win is to expose neoliberalism as bad for the economy because it is bad for the economy. Then people will vote for economically progressive parties and the overton window will shift left instead of right.

Obsessing over PR is a distraction so I wish we had it already. I sincerely hope that Legault keeps his promise about imposing it. I don't know where that is at right now.

You have this talent for when you do longer posts starting with somethings so off base that the desire to continue reading evaporates. I did not get past your second paragraph contradiction of your first. Yes, Trudeau could ahve imposed his promise that he ran and got elected on -- his way. We may not have liked it but it would have meant keeping his promise. Instead he did not compromise, did not continue the process to find a way through but instead shot it down. The complain is still that he ran on one thing, got a majority and then adopted the Conservative position of FPTP in violation of everything he said to voters becuase, plainly, this was now in his interest as he arrogantly could not see a time when he could not get a flase majority.

Due to the BS in your first two paragraphs I lost interest in whatever you went on to in the rest.

And your comment about P3s is just silly. Let me tell you this: your ability to interpret what other people are saying is your very weakest talent. Just don't bother. I would not have said he has seen the light. I might have been grateful that he did not continue but I would not ascribe any sincerity to Liberal decisions, even if I was puzzled by a change of heart on something.

Oh shit, despite my better judgment I kept reading. Your third paragraph is even more ridiculous than the first two. No way is any voter going to consider that Trudeau took in any new information other than his own self interest and the pressure of Liberals with their self interests.

Your next paragraph about division is not quite as silly but close. How do you suppose that this issue is so important as to be divisive and yet nobody cares? Hmmm.

The next paragraph shows that ou respond to things you do not read -- again. The issue of the broken promise on electoral reform does not have to be advanced by a party. It may come from individual candidates, third parties, voters themselves and the media. It may come from the Conservative side in politics as well and it won't look as direct or whiny as you put it as you imagine it would from the NDP. Besides only Liberals would consider such a significant broken promise about such an important issue to political representation as whiny. Pardon me and just about ANYONE who reads your post for returning to the assumption that you are driven by Liberal partisanship whether it is closeted or not and whether you are aware of your deep and undying loyalty to Team Trudeau or not...

However, your next paragraph actually discloses a little more about how Liberal your tendencies really are. Just about everybody makes assumptions about the majority being where theya re -- no matter where they are. As for the assumption about Canadians being centrist -- this is also another Pondering display of political ignorance. What they hell is centre? Many people would class all successful canadian political parties (those who elect MPs) and not just the Liberals as centrist. A few might exclude the so-called "people's party." The reality is that the Canadian political world is quite narrow like most countries. That does not mean that this centre would not be divided among a sub left and sub right that in Canadian terms are quite far apart from each other. But the truly goofy part of your post about the Canadians at the centre comes when you look at a political map of the provincial governments. unless you consider all Canadian parties as the centre and your statemnt to be silly, then you cannot see much of Canada electing centrists provincially. Look at the polls, you do not see them choosing centrists in great numbers federall -- that is unless the whole lot are centrists and your comment utterly meaningless.

Ok so this is where I have to stop reading having found already so many reasons to not believe there would be a shred of anything worth continuing for.

Let me just say I enjoy your posts, though, Pondering, in the way that I like to buy bag salad -- which comes chopped and ready -- you know, fast food. Your comments come pre-shredded like that.

I honestly wish PR would come in so NDPers would have to accept that Canadians are majority centrist. Canadians are radically moderate.

I don’t consider the Conservatives to be centrist. I think they are clearly right of centre. I think FPTP allows the Conservatives to win phoney FPTP ”majorities” even when the majority of the voters prefer parties to the left of them and that PR would prevent those kinds of unrepresentative right wing governments from winning power with just a minority share of the vote.

I honestly wish PR would come in so NDPers would have to accept that Canadians are majority centrist. Canadians are radically moderate.

I don’t consider the Conservatives to be centrist. I think they are clearly right of centre. I think FPTP allows the Conservatives to win phoney FPTP ”majorities” even when the majority of the voters prefer parties to the left of them and that PR would prevent those kinds of unrepresentative right wing governments from winning power with just a minority share of the vote.

You know the Overton window has been moved right when the Liberal Party of today is referred to as on the left or progressive. Where we place the Conservatives on the spectrum is meaningless. What matters is what most swing voters think. Federally Conservatives and Liberals have traded places back and forth since Confederation have they not? They have similar fiscal policies do they not? Social conservatism is what has held Conservatives back. Harper reassured people that Conservatives would not touch abortion law nor LGBTQ rights.

This narrative that the Liberals and NDP split the vote on the left so if only the Liberals could be destroyed is self-defeating. It is as accurate to say the Conservatives and Liberals split the vote on the right. The Liberals aren't tricking Canadians into voting for them instead of the NDP over and over again.

It is as accurate to say the Conservatives and Liberals split the vote on the right.

I think opinion polls over the last 15 years have usually shown that relatively few voters switch between the Conservatives and Liberals. It will be interesting to see if the advent of the People’s Party can split the right of centre vote. If the Peoples Party can approach 10-15% of the vote, vote splitting may become more of a neutral phenomenon between right and left in Canada. It’s no accident that the Conservatives fight tooth and nail to keep FPTP as it currently gives them an advantage via vote-splitting.

It is as accurate to say the Conservatives and Liberals split the vote on the right.

I think opinion polls over the last 15 years have usually shown that relatively few voters switch between the Conservatives and Liberals. It will be interesting to see if the advent of the People’s Party can split the right of centre vote. If the Peoples Party can approach 10-15% of the vote, vote splitting may become more of a neutral phenomenon between right and left in Canada. It’s no accident that the Conservatives fight tooth and nail to keep FPTP as it currently gives them an advantage via vote-splitting.

You could say that the Conservatives and Liberals split policies on the right and the NDP and Liberals split votes on the left.

Ergo the run from the left and govern from the right Liberal bait and switch policy.

Ok so this is where I have to stop reading having found already so many reasons to not believe there would be a shred of anything worth continuing for.

I make a point of not reading or responding to posts that aren’t worth reading. I start losing track and think “whatever, I’ll check another thread.” And away I go! Just like that. No warning or anything. POOF I’m gone!

Pondering wrote:

So the complaint is not that he didn't keep his promise. It is that he didn't keep it in a manner that would have satisfied you. Therefore, the core complaint is not about keeping promises. If he broke his promise to use P3s you would be saying he had seen the light and praising him not accusing him of being a liar.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

And your comment about P3s is just silly. Let me tell you this: your ability to interpret what other people are saying is your very weakest talent. Just don't bother. I would not have said he has seen the light. I might have been grateful that he did not continue but I would not ascribe any sincerity to Liberal decisions, even if I was puzzled by a change of heart on something.

My point remains you would not be complaining that he’s a liar and insisting he should keep his promise. The praising him part was sarcasm.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

. No way is any voter going to consider that Trudeau took in any new information other than his own self interest and the pressure of Liberals with their self interests.

I didn’t say they would. In general voters expect politicians will change their minds based on changing conditions therefore not following through on an election promise isn’t in and of itself considered that big a deal unless the backtrack is on something significant to that voter, or more significant than other issues. They don’t go down the list of broken promises checking the reasons behind each. They know there will be a bunch.

Because PR is not important to most voters they will not care about the specific reasons why he didn’t follow through. It will just be one of those things politicians didn’t follow through on. Calling him a liar over it just seems overdone because it could be said about every politician facing a second or third term.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The complain is still that he ran on one thing, got a majority and then adopted the Conservative position of FPTP in violation of everything he said to voters becuase, plainly, this was now in his interest as he arrogantly could not see a time when he could not get a flase majority.

Really, is that a fact? How do you know he assumed he could always get a false majority? I had no idea that you are a mind reader so can divine people’s motivations. I see now why you mistakenly thought that I was posing as a fortune teller in the JWR thread.

Ok so this is where I have to stop reading having found already so many reasons to not believe there would be a shred of anything worth continuing for.

I make a point of not reading or responding to posts that aren’t worth reading. I start losing track and think “whatever, I’ll check another thread.” And away I go! Just like that. No warning or anything. POOF I’m gone!

Pondering wrote:

So the complaint is not that he didn't keep his promise. It is that he didn't keep it in a manner that would have satisfied you. Therefore, the core complaint is not about keeping promises. If he broke his promise to use P3s you would be saying he had seen the light and praising him not accusing him of being a liar.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

And your comment about P3s is just silly. Let me tell you this: your ability to interpret what other people are saying is your very weakest talent. Just don't bother. I would not have said he has seen the light. I might have been grateful that he did not continue but I would not ascribe any sincerity to Liberal decisions, even if I was puzzled by a change of heart on something.

My point remains you would not be complaining that he’s a liar and insisting he should keep his promise. The praising him part was sarcasm.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

. No way is any voter going to consider that Trudeau took in any new information other than his own self interest and the pressure of Liberals with their self interests.

I didn’t say they would. In general voters expect politicians will change their minds based on changing conditions therefore not following through on an election promise isn’t in and of itself considered that big a deal unless the backtrack is on something significant to that voter, or more significant than other issues. They don’t go down the list of broken promises checking the reasons behind each. They know there will be a bunch.

Because PR is not important to most voters they will not care about the specific reasons why he didn’t follow through. It will just be one of those things politicians didn’t follow through on. Calling him a liar over it just seems overdone because it could be said about every politician facing a second or third term.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The complain is still that he ran on one thing, got a majority and then adopted the Conservative position of FPTP in violation of everything he said to voters becuase, plainly, this was now in his interest as he arrogantly could not see a time when he could not get a flase majority.

Really, is that a fact? How do you know he assumed he could always get a false majority? I had no idea that you are a mind reader so can divine people’s motivations. I see now why you mistakenly thought that I was posing as a fortune teller in the JWR thread.